Numerous tools may be used to obtain criminal evidence, as well as to investigate crimes. Currently, DNA is the type of evidence that is gathered and secured only when a specially trained crime scene technician is on the scene. However, there are times when crime scene technicians cannot be on the scene, as they may be at more “urgent” crime scenes, thus leaving the officer or investigator to his or her own devices. This can allow for important evidence to be either missed or destroyed accidentally by officers on the scene.
The previous gathering of DNA has shown that an accidental microbial mixture of DNA (a sample containing a mixture of DNA from every person that touched an item of interest such as for example a gun, including law enforcement and crime lab personnel's DNA) often occurs, causing any sample to be inconclusive upon analysis. This problem has been seen in crime laboratories attempting to analyze swabs from weapons, as well as other swabs containing DNA that become contaminated from improper handling. This DNA is generally referred to as “contact DNA”, as it is DNA recovered from an item that is simply touched by a person. Historically, DNA has only been gathered from wet surfaces, such as saliva and blood, and the collection device was then dried to preserve the DNA.
Weapons are often used in crimes. For example, firearms are used throughout the world as the weapon of choice for facilitating crimes. When a firearm is recovered, the current method of attempting to identify who used or handled the firearm is by fingerprinting. This, however, has not yielded very positive results (only 3-5% of firearms that are finger printed yield a result, as firearms are not manufactured to yield fingerprints). Law enforcement personnel also have attempted to use Gun Swab Residue tests, taken from the hand of a person suspected of firing a gun, as gun powder will sometimes leave a residue on the skin of a person who fired it. This test has also been seen as unreliable. (See Anoka, Minnesota Judge Rejects Gunshot Residue Evidence, Pioneer Press, May 13, 2006, David Orrick). Fingerprinting as well has been challenged as unreliable, under the Daubert standard expert test. (See United States v Harvard, 260 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2001)). This was the first of many challenges concerning the actual “science” of both gathering and analyzing fingerprints. Although courts recently have upheld fingerprinting and its analysis techniques, there are current cases pending challenging both the fingerprints and the techniques used in obtaining an identification from fingerprints. For example, see Grandfathering evidence: fingerprint admissibility rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and back again, American Criminal Law Review, June 2004, Cole, Simon A. It is not clear if these current challenges will be upheld, however, it is indicative of how the “science” of fingerprinting is being disputed by defense attorneys and others. As police and other law enforcement personnel investigate crimes, DNA often is the best evidence that can be gathered to assist in identifying a suspect.
The problem historically is that although DNA can be gathered from firearms, or from other target items or surfaces, doing so at the actual scene is often inconvenient and difficult for law enforcement officers to complete. Moreover, currently officers have to obtain distilled water, which can be cumbersome and inconvenient to carry with them, and place it on a swab to attempt to gather any DNA. Also, conventional DNA gathering techniques require the gathered specimen to be dried prior to analysis. Similarly, conventional DNA gathering techniques do not protect the gathered specimen from contamination by for example mold and/or bacteria.
What is needed is a device and process that will allow users to gather a biological specimen, such as for example and without limitation a DNA specimen, without concern that the specimen will degrade if not dried immediately. It is also desirable that the gathered specimen will be preserved or protected from contamination from for example and without limitation touch/contact DNA, bacteria and/or mold. It is also desirable that the specimen gathering device and method be capable of gathering a specimen from any surface, wet or dry, where a biologic can be deposited. The process for gathering the specimen(s) should be relatively easy to use and teach.
Currently there are patents that assist in this process. For example, see generally, the following related U.S. patents, the disclosures of which are now expressly incorporated herein by reference: U.S. Pat. No. 4,707,450 dated November 1987 to Nason; U.S. Pat. No. 4,978,504 dated December 1990 to Nason; U.S. Pat. No. 5,266,266 dated November 1993 to Nason; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,248,294 dated Jun. 19, 2001 to Nason. However, the specimen gathering kit and the manner in which the specimen gathering kit is used are both unique and novel.